romanian identity, acculturation, and belonging in britain: a ......research in this area (e.g....

Romanian Identity, Acculturation, and Belonging in Britain: a reappraisal of Pantiru and Barley (2014).

Henry Lennon,

PhD Student (b3041382),

Sheffield Hallam University.

3283 words, 15/5/2015.

“...how can peoples of different cultural backgrounds encounter each other, seek avenues of mutual understanding, negotiate and compromise on their initial positions, and achieve some

degree of harmonious engagement?” (Berry, 2005:698)

Contents Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 2

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 2

The research context ....................................................................................................................... 2

Theoretical concepts: ethnicity, acculturation, and capital ............................................................. 3

Romanian acculturation: outstanding questions and rationale ........................................................ 5

Survey rationale/merits ................................................................................................................... 6

Methodology ................................................................................................................................... 7

Questionnaire .................................................................................................................................. 7

Sampling ......................................................................................................................................... 8

Measurement instruments ............................................................................................................... 8

SPSS implementation.................................................................................................................... 10

Fieldwork plan .............................................................................................................................. 10

Summary and proposed impact..................................................................................................... 11

References ..................................................................................................................................... 12

Appendix I : Romania in context .................................................................................................. 16

Appendix II: List of figures and tables (in order of presentation) ................................................ 17

Appendix III: Proposed Information Letter .................................................................................. 20

Appendix IV: Questionnaire pt.1, background information ......................................................... 21

Appendix V: Questionnaire pt.2, measurement of perceived capital scale .................................. 23

Appendix VI: Questionnaire pt.3, measurement of Romanian identification .............................. 26

Appendix VII: Breakdown of „measurement of perceived capital‟ scale ..................................... 28

Appendix VIII: Breakdown of „measurement of perceived Romanian capital‟ scale .................. 29

Develop a research problem (and questions) that can be appropriately addressed through the design of a survey and

resulting data analysis. Construct and critique a measurement instrument, sampling scheme and fieldwork plan.

3283 words, 15/05/2015. 2 | P a g e

Summary

This proposal––building on Pantiru and Barley‟s (2014) recent research––investigates how

changing cultural contexts might impact upon the way Romanians are acculturating and perceive

their capital (Bourdieu, 1986) in British society. Owing to substantial qualitative and discursive

research in this area (e.g. Light & Young, 2009), it is argued that survey research from a critical

realist perspective (Sayer, 1992) is an appropriate approach for understanding how changing

public discourses in Europe (Lesińka, 2014) impact upon moving actors‟ backgrounds and

attitudes. A survey––combining biographical measures from Pantiru and Barley (2014),

acculturation measures from Berry (2005) with perception-based measures of capital and

belonging that I constructed––was piloted using snowball sampling to document how

Romanians living in South Yorkshire (specifically those who belong to the post-1989 and post-

2007 cohorts) currently perceive their lives as acculturating migrants in British society. I outline

preliminary findings and conclude that with appropriate revisions, it would be a useful indicator

to utilise in future research investigating the dynamic relations between the perceived and actual.

Introduction

In a globalised age, diverse multicultural societies like Britain are commonplace (Kymlicka,

2010). Indeed, economic and technological transformations have corresponded with an

increasingly politicised discursive environment in Europe with indigenous „roots‟, fear of

„clouds‟ and „waves‟ of new „sponging‟ incomers, and the need for robust border „containers‟

and „drawbridges‟ to protect citizens being common threads in policy discussions of ethnic

relations public services and employment (Anderson & Blinder, 2014; Bartram, Poros, &

Montforte, 2014; Kurtz, 2014; Lesińka, 2014; Reitveld, 2013). Accordingly, there is a need to

understand how moving and receiving communities relate to themselves and each other

(Chryssochoou, 2004; Howarth & Andreouli, n.d.).

The research context

This climate was reproduced for the recent lifting of transitional controls for Romanians and

Bulgarians as new members of the European Union in January 2014, enabling them to move

freely without permits or visas (Accession Treaty, 2005). In Britain, the preceding period was

defined by a vigorous debate about EU membership, border controls and population change in

relation to Romania characterising social and economic incompatibilities (see Appendix I for a

more detailed description). Thus, understanding how Romanians living in Britain have

experienced their acculturation and perceive this broader context is an important social question.



3283 words, 15/05/2015. 3 | P a g e

Theoretical concepts: ethnicity, acculturation, and capital

Migration presupposes two distinctive, bounded spaces within which movement occurs

(placeaplaceb). These „spaces‟ are geographically-situated, bound to different constructed

norms, values, beliefs, symbols and practices of its respective ethnic inhabitants (Barker &

Galasiński, 2001:122). Concurring with Hall (1996:446):

“The term ethnicity acknowledges the place of history, language and culture in the construction of subjectivity and identity, as well as the fact that all discourse is placed, positioned, situated, and all knowledge is contextual.”

„Romanian‟ ethnicity is accordingly characterised by its sharing of common language, historical

discourse and cultural practices, lending to the construction of a distinctive Diaspora by its

members (Chryssochoou, 2004:xxiii).1 This proposal considers how Romanians perceive their

(mis)recognition by the self-defined majority community in Britain as a relational phenomenon

mediated by acculturative and social factors (Barker & Galasiński, 2001:123).

Migration also implies that change may result in the new space: „acculturation‟ (Berry, 2001).

Early definitions of acculturation emphasised contact, reciprocal influence and change (Redfield

et al., 1936). Over time, movers would relinquish their ethnic identities and assimilate into the

(numerical or symbolic) majority culture (Gordon, 1964, cited in Chryssochoou, 2004:xxv).

However, Berry disputes this unidirectional model, arguing that acculturation is instead a:

“...dual [bidirectional] process of cultural and psychological change result[ing from] contact between two or more cultural [sic] groups and their individual members. At the group level, it involves changes in social structures and institutions and in cultural practices. At the individual level, it involves changes in a person’s behavioral repertoire. (Berry, 2005:698)

Movers undergo this learning process when exposed to new ethnic groups (Balls et al., 2010),

with acculturation negotiating both cultural maintenance and contact and participation as they

make existential decisions concerning whether/how they will maintain their ethnic

identities/culture and whether/how they will develop relationships with the new society,

resulting in one of four strategies: integration, assimilation, separation, or marginalisation

(Berry, 2005; see Table I). This is mediated by how the receiving society debates and

implements organisational decisions concerning the social, economic and political life of its

resident members, shaping show people see their own social identities and „others‟ (whether

other in-groups or out-groups; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Movement is imagined by „in-groups‟

1 Precise definit ions and boundaries of ethnicity are debated (Spencer, 2006:45) mainly between the primarily

primordial (ethnicity as natural) vs. instrumentalist (ethnicity as constructed) positions (Ngarachu, 2014:58). Taking

a „middle‟ ground, I agree with Bourdieu (1986) that focusing on „practice‟ is more conducive (than „definition‟) to

understand how „identities‟ and „belonging‟ are constituted through people‟s actions and perceptions.



3283 words, 15/05/2015. 4 | P a g e

and movers interacted with in everyday life. For the mover, psychological changes that may

occur––whether simply adaptational or developmental (Schönpflug, 1997)––are encased within

this broader social context (cf. Chirkov, 2009). Therefore, movers are faced by a pre-existing

cultural context which guides (structurally) their subsequent possible/potential acculturation

experiences (Table II).2

Bourdieu (1986, 1990) is also helpful in conceptualising the receiving society-mover

relationship. Depending on one‟s position in a given social field (a network of positions sharing

common ground, valued stakes and effects in practice), individuals develop different habituses

(e.g. accents/dialect, taste, lifestyle, values, opinions) (Bourdieu, 1986), being “places of power

relations where practices of agents are not arbitrary” (Walther, 2014:9). Attaining and being

legitimised to deploy different types of capital, people are accordingly wielding different

amounts of relative power in particular contexts (Table III). What happens when someone moves

into a field elsewhere where their capital or habitus is devalued, defuncted, or delegitimised?

These are instances where the mover‟s capability to acculturate will be shaped by social forces,

thus we should consider how acculturative processes mediate with how movers perceive their

capital (i.e. „power‟) and its representation in society.

2 This controversy is evident in debates about „multiculturalism‟ and its alleged failure ( in Britain, see

Cameron, 2011; Goodhart, 2004; Kymlicka, 2010). Investigating acculturation without this social context

severely hampers knowledge produced (Andreouli, 2013; Reicher & Hopkins, 2001:15). While theoretical

moves have been made (Padilla & Perez, 2003), empirical work still fails to make this link (Chrikov, 2009).



3283 words, 15/05/2015. 5 | P a g e

Romanian acculturation: outstanding questions and rationale

Berry (2005) argues forcefully that acculturation theory takes seriously the interplay between

moving and receiving groups. However, others critique this assertion insofar that receiving

groups are rarely analysed for how public discourse shapes movers‟ acculturative strategies

(Bowskill, Lyons, & Coyle, 2007; Chirkov, 2009; Rudmin, 2003; Sapountzis, 2013). Indeed,

UK-based research investigating Romanian experiences of migration in social context is

somewhat scant. Laura Moroşanu‟s work is a recent exception focusing upon social relationships

and practices of Romanians in Britain, documenting how Romanians in London have

acculturated in the immediate life-worlds (Moroşanu, 2015; Moroşanu, 2013a, 2013b; Moroşanu

& Fox, 2013; see also Ivancheva, 2007; Moroşanu, Szilassy, & Fox, 2015). However, what

remains unknown here is how biographical indicators (education, work status, etc.) and

subjective perceptions of different forms of capital might mediate such acculturative processes.

Romocea (2013) argues that there are also qualitative differences in Romanian acculturation

experiences due to the circumstances of people‟s movement as either political refugees (pre-

1989), knowledge diaspora (post-1989), or economic migrants (post-2007) Accordingly, their

perceptions of capital, belonging and acculturation strategies, may vary. Based on Romocea‟s

(2013) theorising and other research (e.g. Clare et al., 2014), alongside the notion that

acculturation timespans vary (“sometimes taking years”; see Berry, 2005:699), and that sheer

forced migration is more complex and fragmented (Bartram et al., 2014), it seems that the pre-

1989 cohort require an exclusive mixed-method focus. Thus, investigating the post-1989/2007

cohorts in their own right seems more appropriate for this study.



3283 words, 15/05/2015. 6 | P a g e

Pantiru and Barley (2014) conducted the only survey to date investigating recent Romanian

acculturation in Britain. Using a mixed-methods approach (surveys and semi-structured

interviews), they surveyed the acculturation strategies of 245 participants (and interviewed

three). They documented how their sample (majority being urbanised, female, married, childless,

well-educated, English-competent) largely identified with an integration strategy while living in

Britain. The primary reason given for moving was „better quality of life‟. They also found

women were more likely to integrate and assimilate as opposed to men become

marginalised/separated. The authors also noted longer working hours, more children, and lower

consumption of Romanian media/local events were linked to assimilation strategies. They also

found participants did not identify explicitly with the practices of „racialisation‟ in British

society as previously found in media-based analysis (Fox et al., 2012).

Pantiru and Barley‟s (2014) research raises some interesting questions that this project proposes

to build upon. Clearly, the survey is an appropriate tool for gathering a wide variety of data to

consider how acculturation and social context are mediated from the perspective of the moving

actor, something so far missed in the research discussed. The main research arising from this

literature review above asks: how do Romanians’ (living in Britain) circumstances of movement,

perceptions of receiving society and cultural identity link to their acculturative strategies?

Survey rationale/merits

As stated, the survey has been chosen due to two main reasons:

Most relevant research has been qualitative, focusing either upon the social construction of migration discourse in Britain, or on Romanian migration experiences;

There is scant coherent data on how the recent changing social context (i.e. A2 accession, public debate) has shaped Romanians‟ personal circumstances and their perceptions of

belonging or acculturative strategies.

It is therefore appropriate (and practical) to construct a methodological design that acknowledges

the merits of previous research (Sayer, 1992). The key strengths of surveys are that large

amounts of data can be gathered quickly, with previously-defined variables rigorously

structuring inquiry to help towards the construction of future theories (Haralambos & Holborn

1991:731-732). However there some particular criticisms against surveys:

1) They can be biased, stressing/ignoring certain topics (Haralambos & Holborn 1991:732)

2) Answer can be prone to social-desirability, unwillingness and/or misunderstanding (ibid.)

3) They can suppress variability (Potter & Wetherell, 1987)

4) Inquiry involves reinterpreting an already-interpreted world (Sacks, 1995)



3283 words, 15/05/2015. 7 | P a g e

Regarding 1): guided by a rich theoretical (Berry, 2005; Bourdieu, 1986) and empirical (Pantiru

& Barley, 2014) qualitative context, the surveys‟ assembly was based on recurrent themes of

discrimination/stigma (Moroşanu & Fox, 2013), opportunity/access to work/services (Ivancheva,

2007), and culture/language (Pantiru & Barley, 2014). Regarding 3): participant engagement

with surveys is an endemic problem for all researchers; even constructionists analysing their

data‟s as „meaningful‟ (their version of „truth‟) still place similar value on them (Hammersley,

2003). Therefore answers should be treated rigorously investigated during analysis (Pantiru &

Barley, 2014). Regarding 4) and 5): there can be great value in studying the variability and rich

interpretations of social life (Potter & Wetherell, 1987; Sacks, 1995). However, to construct a

specific and detailed map of acculturation processes, we need to use alternative methodologies

(and indeed philosophies) to understand what factors might underpin contemporary experiences.

For this aim, a survey is a balanced compromise.

Methodology

In this proposal, I treat „methodology‟ as

“...concerned with both the detailed research methods through which data are collected, and the more general philosophies upon which the collection and analysis of data are based.” (Haralambos & Holborn 1991:698)

A„quantitative‟ methodology will be used with the aim towards “pointing, sampling, counting,

measuring, calculating, and abstracting” (Shweder, 1996:177) data to understand underlying

patterns organising Romanian acculturation experience in relation to their new social

environment. The survey method would collect standardised data from the target population in

the form of an online questionnaire (Haralambos & Holborn 1991:727-728).

It is therefore assumed that there are (at least some) aspects of social life which are reducible,

testable and interpretable using surveys (Coolican, 1994:64). Even in dilemmas and

contradictions there are also discernible patterns (Moroşanu, Szilassy, & Fox, 2015). This

philosophical position draws on critical realism and pragmatism, a mid-way between scientific

realism and radical constructionism (Sayer, 1992). The social world in this view is stratified, tied

between the real and people‟s perceptions of it (Maxwell, 2013). Combining quantitative data

about movers‟ (ontologically-real) circumstances and (epistemologically-constructed)

perceptions is deemed a useful way of understanding acculturative processes (Berry, 2005).

Questionnaire

The questionnaire would be completed online in four parts (Appendices III-VI): it began with

instructions and ethical information (Appendix III); biographical questions based on Pantiru and



3283 words, 15/05/2015. 8 | P a g e

Barley (2014) and the two acculturation questions (cultural maintenance and contact-

participation) followed (Appendix IV); likert scales (Coolican, 1994:139) measured

participants‟ perceptions of their cultural/social capital (Appendix V); finally, likert scales

measured perceptions of Romanian ethnicity in Britain, with (optional) questionnaire feedback

also collected (Appendix VI).

Sampling

As Pantiru and Barley‟s (2014) research was exploratory, they note that their subsequent

convenience sampling strategy rendered it inappropriate to conduct inferential tests and make

generalisable claims, instead outlining their sample in rich descriptive detail. Due to the practical

problems of random sampling (Haralambos & Holborn 1991:722-724; Clegg, 1990: 116-117)––

especially as the Romanian population clearly exhibits variability and is not a homogenous

population (Romocea, 2013)––snowball sampling would be deemed more appropriate to

investigate the recent Diaspora living in Britain (the post-1992/post-2007 cohorts) (Coolican,

1994:36-37). This would involve contacting colleagues known to the researcher and asking them

to forward the information letter and questionnaire within their social networks.

The data gathered would therefore contribute towards understanding how participants‟

acculturation processes were linked to their background and their capital perceptions. It would

not aspire to be representative of all Romanians living in Britain, instead documenting

participants from the local area (South Yorkshire). The findings would aim to shed light on a

potential future project that could use random sampling and focus on a broader

geographical/demographic focus to inferentially assess the links between the proposed measures.

Measurement instruments

The biographical questions were based on Pantiru and Barley‟s (2014) survey, gathering details

on age, gender, homeplace, current place, reasons for moving, prior contacts and help coming,

highest Romanian qualification, highest British qualification, English profiency, languages

spoken, accommodation, occupation, employment challenges, marital status, and children

(Appendix IV). The acculturation questions were modified from Chrysochoou (2004) but

simplified (by removing the abstract transitive phrase: „is it considered to be of value‟):

1. Is it valuable to develop/maintain new relationships in the United Kingdom?

2. Is it valuable to maintain one's Romanian identity and culture?



3283 words, 15/05/2015. 9 | P a g e

The „measurement of perceived capital scale‟ was developed following readings of Bourdieu

(1986, 1990), Walther (2014), and two online resources3 (Appendix V). Their construction

sought to encourage subjective assessments of efficacy, knowledge, and well-being (e.g.

“confident”, “content”, “enjoy”). I developed 20 statements in total (Table III), with ten for

social and cultural capital respectively. It was designed to gauge how valued and involved

participants‟ felt in their everyday life. The order of scales was alternated (i.e. social-capital-

social-capital) to minimise order effects (Clegg, 1990).

The „measurement of perceived Romanian identification‟ scale was constructed similarly to

conceptually mirror Bourdieu‟s (1986) „symbolic‟ capital (Table IV). Thus they were concerned

with gauging the extent to which they felt aspects of their national identity and culture was

valued in Britain.

The perception sections used likert scales constructed on a 1-5 agreement-disagreement (Likert,

1932). Higher values denoted more agreement (Coolican, 1994). Five scales were chosen to

balance simplicity with the option of neutrality („indifferent‟). The scale was designed

symmetrically to make it appear neutral (Figure I).

3 See http://www.bettertogether.org/socialcapital.htm, and http://www.oecd.org/insights/37966934.pdf

http://www.bettertogether.org/socialcapital.htm

http://www.oecd.org/insights/37966934.pdf



3283 words, 15/05/2015. 10 | P a g e

SPSS implementation

Figures III and IV show how the variables and data might be represented in the statistics

software (SPSS). Figure III shows the mostly „nominal‟ background variables (i.e. divided into

groups, e.g. „reasons for coming‟ has five reasons: 1=formal_study, 2=work, 3=join_family,

4=improve_life, 5=other; „acculturation_strategy‟ has four categories depending on their yes/no

answers for contact_participation and culture_main variables: 1=integration [yes/yes],

2=assimilation [yes/no], 3=marginalisation [no/no], 4=separation [no/yes]). Figure IV displays

the perception variables: they are „scale‟ because were measured with equal units between

answers (1-2-3-4-5).

Figure III: proposed layout for background variables Figure IV: proposed layout for perception scales

Fieldwork plan

The piloting stage would occur in three stages:

1) Variable definition and layout. First the analytical variables would be defined (e.g.

nominal, ordinal) and mapped in relation to the main analytical questions (i.e. the links between independent variables [IV] and dependent variables [DV]).

Some example questions to gather descriptive statistics would include:

„perceived capital‟ [DV] and occupation type[IV]

gender [IV] and „perceived Romanian identification‟ [DV]

„reason for coming‟ [DV] and age [IV]

Figure II below displays the theoretical orientation of the survey and the analytic approach: by

investiating the mover, we are considering the interaction between factual (top-down) and

perceptual (bottom-up) processes as experienced in situ by the mover (centre).



3283 words, 15/05/2015. 11 | P a g e

2) Piloting. The pilot would take place, acquiring preliminary data to assess the questionnaire‟s merits from participant feedback (McQueen & Knussen, 1999:111).

3) Internal consistency and participant feedback. Following data collection, as the perception measures would be unverified as reliable measures, a Cronbach Alpha test would be needed to verify its internal consistency in acquiring similarly distributed

answers4 Coolican, 1994:151). Participants feedback (if any) would also be investigated (e.g. to consider how the survey was perceived and completed).

Summary and proposed impact

Research in acculturation tends to be restricted to measuring acculturation strategies independent

of any relevant and/or sensitive cultural factors (Andreouli, 2013; Chirkov, 2009). Further, most

relevant research in the area of Romanian migration has been qualitative and largely focused on

„case studies‟ related to particular issues pertaining to migration, national identity and culture in

Britain, with only one survey investigating recent patterns of Romanian acculturation. A new

emphasis is needed to gather broader patterns in relation to current social contexts of migration,

therefore a survey was developed as a potential future basis for generalisable and inferential

research, proposing to understand how the Romanian mover in Britain––as an „individual in

society‟ (Chryssochoou, 2004)––is both shaped and agentive in their acculturative processes.

This involved measuring background information and movers‟ perceptions of capital

(social/cultural in relation to belonging, and symbolic in feeling their ethnic identity is valued).

This would therefore promote both rich data acquisition needed to understand the acculturative

context of Romanians in Britain (relevant, e.g., for service planning and resource distribution),

but will also act as a critical tool for challenging contemporary discourses in how they are

perceived to impact upon movers living in Britain.

4 Please note this is not with the view of broader/future generalisation, but to consider the relative worth of its

context of application.



3283 words, 15/05/2015. 12 | P a g e

References

Accession Treaty of Bulgaria and Romania (2005). Available from http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/enlargement_process/future_prospects/negotiations/eu10_bulgaria_romania/treaty_2005_en.htm

Anderson, B., & Blinder, S., (2014). Who counts as a migrant? Definitions and their Consequences (3rd Revision). Migration Observatory Briefing, University of Oxford, UK.

Available from www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/whocountsmigrantdefinitionsandtheirconsequences

Andreouli, E. (2013). Identity and acculturation: The Case of Naturalised Citizens in Britain. Culture & Psychology, 19(2), 165-183.

Balls, P., Marin, G., & Chun, K. (2010). The Psychology of Ethnic Groups in the United States

(2nd edition). London: Sage.

Barker, C. & Galasiński, D. (2001). Cultural Studies and Discourse Analysis: A Dialogue on

Language and Identity. London: Sage.

Bartram, D., & Poros, M., & Montforte, P. (2014). Key Concepts in Migration. London: Sage.

Berry, J. W. (2005). Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures. International Journal of

Intercultural Relations, 29(6), 697-712. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.07.013

Berry, J., (2001). A Psychology of Immigration. Journal of Social Issues, 57(3), 615-631.

Billig, M. (1995). Banal Nationalism. London: Sage.

Boski, P. (2013). A Psychology of Economic Migration. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(7), 1067-1093. doi:10.1177/0022022112471895

Bourdieu, P. (1992). The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1990) Structures, Habitus, Practices. In Bourdieu, P. The Logic of Practice.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 52-79.

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. In Richardson, J. (Ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. New York: Greenwood, 241-258.

Bowskill, M., Lyons, E., & Coyle, A. (2007). The Rhetoric of Acculturation: When Integration Means Assimilation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46(4), 793-813.

Cameron, D., (2011). Munich Security Conference Speech. Available from http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130109092234/http://number10.gov.uk/news/pms-speech-at-munich-security-conference/

Charteris-Black, J. (2006) Britain as a Container: Immigration Metaphors in the 2005 Election Campaign. Discourse & Society, 17(5), 563-581.

Chirkov, V. (2009). Critical Psychology of Acculturation: What do we study and how do we study it, when we investigate Acculturation? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33(2), 94-105. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.12.004

Chrysochoou, X., (2004) Cultural Diversity: Its Social Psychology. Oxford: Blackwell.

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/enlargement_process/future_prospects/negotiations/eu10_bulgaria_romania/treaty_2005_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/enlargement_process/future_prospects/negotiations/eu10_bulgaria_romania/treaty_2005_en.htm

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/whocountsmigrantdefinitionsandtheirconsequences

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130109092234/http:/number10.gov.uk/news/pms-speech-at-munich-security-conference/

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130109092234/http:/number10.gov.uk/news/pms-speech-at-munich-security-conference/



3283 words, 15/05/2015. 13 | P a g e

Chryssochoou, X. (2000). Multicultural societies: Making sense of new environments and

identities. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 10(5), 343-354. doi:10.1002/1099-1298(200009/10)10:5<343::AID-CASP593>3.0.CO;2-5

Clegg, F., (1990). Simple Statistics: A Course Book for the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cioroianu, A., (2002). The Impossible Escape: Romanians and the Balkans, In Bjelić, D., &

Savić, O., (eds.) Balkan as Metaphor: Between Globalization and Fragmentation, pp.209-233. London: MIT Press.

Cohen, R. (1995). Fuzzy Frontiers of Identity: The British Case. Social Identities, 1(1), 35-62.

Cohen, R. (1994). Frontiers of Identity: The British and the Others. London: Longman.

Coolican, H. (1994). Research Methods and Statistics in Psychology (2nd edition). London:

Hodder & Stoughton.

Fox, J. E., Moroşanu, L., & Szilassy, E. (2012). The Racialization of the New European

Migration to the UK. Sociology, 46(4), 680-695.

Goodhart, D., (2004). Too Diverse? Prospect Magazine, 95, 30-37. Available from http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/too-diverse-david-goodhart-multiculturalism-

britain- immigration-globalisation

Goytislo, J., (2014). Metaphors of Migration. Tribuna Mediterrània, 7, 19-23. Available from

http://www.iemed.org/publicacions/historic-de-publicacions/monografies/sumaris-fotos-monografies/monografia-5-pdf/3.pdf

Hall, S. (1996) Gramsci's relevance for the study of race and ethnicity. in Morley, D. and Chen,

D. (eds.), Stuart Hall: Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies. London: Routledge.

Hammersley, M. (2003) Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis: Methods or Paradigms.

Discourse & Society 14(6): 751–81.

Hammond, A. (2007). Through Savage Europe. Third Text, 21(2), 117-127. doi:10.1080/09528820701272994

Hammond, A., (2006). Balkanism in Political Context: From the Ottoman Empire to the EU. Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture, 3(3), 6-26. Available online:

https://www.Westminster.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/20122/002WPCC-Vol3-No3-Andrew_Hammond.pdf

Haralambos M., & Holborn M., (1991). Sociology: Themes and Perspectives (3rd Edition).

Hammersmith: Harper Collins.

Hogea, A. (2010). Coming to terms with the Communist Past in Romania: An Analysis of the

Political and Media Discourse about the Tismaneanu Report. Studies of Transition States and Societies, 2(1), 16-30.

Howarth, C., & Andreouli, E., (n.d.). „Has Multiculturalism Failed?‟ The Importance of Lay

Knowledge and Everyday Practice. Available from: http://www.lse.ac.uk/socialPsychology/faculty/caroline_howarth/Howarth-and-Andreouli-paper-

FINAL.pdf

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/too-diverse-david-goodhart-multiculturalism-britain-immigration-globalisation

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/too-diverse-david-goodhart-multiculturalism-britain-immigration-globalisation



https://www.westminster.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/20122/002WPCC-Vol3-No3-Andrew_Hammond.pdf

https://www.westminster.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/20122/002WPCC-Vol3-No3-Andrew_Hammond.pdf

http://www.lse.ac.uk/socialPsychology/faculty/caroline_howarth/Howarth-and-Andreouli-paper-FINAL.pdf

http://www.lse.ac.uk/socialPsychology/faculty/caroline_howarth/Howarth-and-Andreouli-paper-FINAL.pdf



3283 words, 15/05/2015. 14 | P a g e

Ivancheva, M., (2007). Strawberry Fields Forever? Bulgarian and Romanian Student Workers in

the UK. European Journal of Anthropology, 49, 110-117.

Jezernik, B. (2003). Wild Europe: The Balkans in the Gaze of Western Travellers. London: Saqi.

Kaneva, N., & Popescu, D. (2011). National Identity Lite: Nation Branding in post-Communist Romania and Bulgaria. International Journal of Cultural Studies, 14(2), 191-207.

Kymlicka, W. (2010). The rise and fall of multiculturalism? new debates on inclusion and

accommodation in diverse societies. International Social Science Journal, 61(199), 97-112. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2451.2010.01750.x

Lesińska, M. (2014). The European Backlash Against Immigration And Multiculturalism. Journal of Sociology, 50(1), 37-50.

Likert, R. (1932), A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. Archives of Psychology,

22(140), 1-55.

Light, D., & Young, C. (2009). European Union Enlargement, Post-Accession Migration and

Imaginative Geographies of the 'New Europe': Media Discourses in Romania and the United Kingdom. Journal of Cultural Geography, 26(3), 281-303. doi:10.1080/08873630903322205

Mazower, M., (2000). The Balkans: from the end of Byzantium to the Present Day. London:

Phoenix Press.

McQueen, R., & Knussen, C., (1999). Research Methods in Psychology: A Practical

Introduction. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall.

Moroşanu, L. (2015). Professional Bridges: Migrants' ties with Natives and Occupational Advancement. Sociology, (online before print). 1-17. doi:10.1177/0038038514568234

Moroşanu, L., Szilassy, E., & Fox, J. E. (2015). Denying Discrimination: Status, 'Race', And The Whitening Of Britain's New Europeans. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41(5), 729-

748. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2014.962491

Moroşanu, L. (2013a). 'We all eat the same bread': The Roots and Limits of Cosmopolitan Bridging ties developed by Romanians in London. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(12), 2160-

2181. doi:10.1080/01419870.2012.696668

Moroşanu, L. (2013b). Between Fragmented Ties and 'soul friendships': The Cross-Border

Social Connections of Young Romanians in London. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39(3), 353-372. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2013.733858

Moroşanu, L., & Fox, J. E. (2013). „No smoke without fire‟: Strategies of Coping with

Stigmatised Migrant Identities. Ethnicities, 13(4), 438-456. doi:10.1177/1468796813483730

Ngarachu, F., (2014). Applying Pierre Bourdieu's concepts of Habitus and Field to the study of

ethnicity in Kenya. Journal of Language, Technology, & Entrepreneurship in Africa, 5(1), 57-69.

Ozer, S. (2013). Theories and Methodologies in Acculturation Psychology: The Emergence of a

Scientific Revolution? Psychological Studies, 58(3), 339-348. doi:10.1007/s12646-013-0203-0

Padilla, A., & Perez, W., (2003). Acculturation, Social Identity, and Social Cognition: A New

Perspective. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 25(1), 35-55.



3283 words, 15/05/2015. 15 | P a g e

Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987) Discourse and Social Psychology. London: Sage.

Razsa, M., & Lindstrom, N. (2004). Balkan is Beautiful: Balkanism in the political discourse of Tuđman's Croatia. East European Politics & Societies, 18(4), 628-650.

doi:10.1177/088832540426693

Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. (1936). Memorandum for the Study of Acculturation. American Anthropologist, 38, 149-152

Reicher, S., & Hopkins, N., (2001). Self and Nation. London: Sage.

Rietveld, E. (2014). Debating Multiculturalism and National Identity in Britain: Competing

Frames. Ethnicities, 14(1), 50-71.

Rudmin, F. W. (2003). Critical History of the Acculturation Psychology of Assimilation, Separation, Integration, and Marginalization. Review of General Psychology, 7(1), 3-37.

doi:10.1037/1089-2680.7.1.3

Sacks, H. (1995) Lectures on Conversation. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Sapountzis, A., (2013). Dominant Group Members Talk About The Acculturation Of Immigrants In Greece: Who Is In Charge Of The Acculturation Process? Hellenic Journal of Psychology, 10(1), 24-46.

Sayer, A., (1992). Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach (2nd edition). London: Routledge.

Schönpflug, U. (1997). Acculturation: Adaptation or Development? Applied Psychology, 46(1), 52-55. doi:10.1080/026999497378511

Shweder, R., (1996). Quanta and Qualia: What is the “Object” of Ethnographic Method? In

Jessor, R., Colby, A., & Shweder, A., (eds.) Ethnography and Human Development: Context and Meaning in Social Inquiry. Chicago: University of Chicago. (175–182).

Spencer, S., (2006) Race & Ethnicity: Culture, Identity and Representation. London: Routledge.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin, W., & Worchel S., (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp.33–47). Monterey, CA:

Brooks/Cole.

Tanasiu, C., (2007). The Tismaneanu Report: Romania Revisits Its Past. Problems of Post-

Communism, 54(4), 60-69.

Tileagă, C. (2012). Communism in Retrospect: The Rhetoric of Historical Representation and Writing the Collective Memory of Recent Past. Memory Studies, 5(4), 462-478.

Todorova, M., (1997). Imagining the Balkans. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Walther, Matthias (2014). Repatriation to France and Germany. A Comparative Study Based on

Bourdieu’s Theory of Practice. Wiesbaden: Springer. Available from http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9783658056995-c1.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1458511-p176722407

http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9783658056995-c1.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1458511-p176722407

http://www.springer.com/cda/content/document/cda_downloaddocument/9783658056995-c1.pdf?SGWID=0-0-45-1458511-p176722407



3283 words, 15/05/2015. 16 | P a g e

Appendix I : Romania in context

Romania is a European nation historically associated with the „Eastern‟ or „Balkan‟ region

(Todovera, 1997), a characteristic with connotations that have proven hard to shift (Cioroianu,

2002; Jezernik 2003). Tracing a history from the Dacians and Romans, Romanians have

developed a distinctive culture defined by Latin-Christian, Eastern-Orthodox, and Turkish-

Islamic influences (Mazower, 2000). Accordingly, Romanians developed close ethno-linguistic

ties with Italy, Spain, and France, inclined to turn Westward for cultural inspiration (Cioroianu,

2002). Since the dramatic fall of Ceaușescu and the Communist regime in 1989, Romania has

undergone dramatic economic and social transformation stemming from its political shift to

semi-presidential democracy and integration into the EU. Despite dramatic shifts towards

marketisation and condemnation of the Communist regime (Hoega, 2010; Tanasoiu, 2006), there

remains a distinctive sense of trauma and ongoing rehabilitation towards “coming to terms with

the past” (Tileagă, 2012:463). In my own research, Romanians living in Britain articulate such

traumas as ongoing as Romania reconfigures itself between competing themes of tradition vs.

„modernisation‟, discredited (ex-)Communism vs. legitimised democracy, Romanian

independence vs. European federalism, and old vs. young, especially as the young keenly

urbanise/emigrate, immersed in Anglospheric/western culture (cf. Kaneva & Popescu, 2011).

Historically, blurred knowledge concerning wars (Balkan Wars, WWII, Cold War, Kosovo

War), scandal (orphanages, stray dogs, Roma travellers), and mythology (Dracula, Vlad the

Impaler), has accordingly „distanced‟ Britain‟s cultural and social connection with Romania

(compared, say, with its French/Spanish neighbours; Cohen, 1994, 1995). This was cemented

following Romania‟s two-stage accession (2007/2014) with a barraged frenzy of scaremongering

and pandering media and political representation (Fox et al, 2012; Hammond, 2006, 2007;

Kaneva & Popescu, 2011; Light & Young, 2009; Razsa & Lindstrom, 2004). Stories abounded

of imminent disaster for British society‟s customs and values (cf. Charteris-Black, 2006).

Thus we see that ethnic differentiation between Romania and Britain is characterised by an

ideological discourse dividing by political, economic and social means: their „recent‟ transition

to democracy, „undeveloped‟ economy, and „uncivilised‟ customs are central points of

constructed difference. The Romanian becomes othered by a discourse substantiating that their

Eastern, Balkan origins necessitate control and discipline to prevent a mass exodus to Britain.

Far from being framed on European grounds, this recent swathe of anti-Romanian sentiment is

historically- familiar by a range of Eastern European discourses (Todovera, 1997). So when

Nigel Farage warned against a „gang‟ of Romanians living next door, the chime of ethnic

difference was already entrenched and merely reproducing an established historical theme.



3283 words, 15/05/2015. 17 | P a g e

Appendix II: List of figures and tables (in order of presentation)



3283 words, 15/05/2015. 18 | P a g e



3283 words, 15/05/2015. 19 | P a g e

Figure III: proposed layout for background variables

Figure IV: proposed layout for perception scales



3283 words, 15/05/2015. 20 | P a g e

Appendix III: Proposed Information Letter

Thank you for showing interest in this pilot study. I have designed a questionnaire that is investigating how your lives have changed and how you see your life here since moving from Romania to the United Kingdom. If you are still happy to take part fill in the proceeding

sections, and if you have any feedback on the questionnaire, there is a space at the end to provide your views.

By taking part you are consenting to me using the data as part of a research project for a Master‟s degree assessment. You do not have to answer any questions you feel uncomfortable

with, and any answers you give are anonymous. Your participation is greatly appreciated but there is no obligation!

Any questions feel free to get in touch – [email protected]

Best wishes,

Henry Lennon PhD Student Department of Psychology, Sociology, and Politics

Sheffield Hallam University

mailto:[email protected]



3283 words, 15/05/2015. 21 | P a g e

Appendix IV: Questionnaire pt.1, background information

3. How old are you?

4. Please specify your gender:

5. Where in Romania are you from (region/city)?

6. Where in the United Kingdom do you now live (region/city)?

7. For how long have you been living in the United Kingdom?

o Under 1 year

o 1-5 years

o Over 5 years

o Over 10 years

8. What were your reasons for coming to the United Kingdom? Please tick all boxes relevant to you.

o Formal study

o Looking for work

o Join immediate family/ partner

o Improving living standards / change of lifestyle

o Other reasons (please specify)

9. Did you know anybody in the United Kingdom before coming here? (e.g. friends/ relatives/ neighbours but NOT partner/spouse/children)

o Yes, Romanians

o Yes, non-Romanians

o No-one

10. If you knew anyone here before you came, did they help you come to the United Kingdom? Please tick as many boxes as necessary.

N/A

No, did not need help

Yes - they helped with papers/ work permits / travel

Yes - they helped with accommodation/ local authority

Yes - they helped with finding a job

Other (p lease specify)

11. What is your highest educational qualification achieved in Romania?

o Up to 10 classes

o School of arts and trades = lower vocational secondary level

o High school

o Post-secondary non-tertiary education = specialised postsecondary school

o University degree

o Postgraduate degree

o Other (p lease specify)

12. What is your highest educational qualification achieved in the United Kingdom?

o No formal qualificat ion

o Secondary School (GCSE)

o Sixth Form/ Post-16 (A-Level)

o University degree (BA, BSc)



3283 words, 15/05/2015. 22 | P a g e

o Higher degree (MA, PhD, PGCE)

o Professional qualification (Teaching, nursing, accountancy)


13. What is your level of English?

o I do not speak English at all

o Beginner

o Intermediate

o Advanced/ proficiency

14. Please name any other languages you speak (intermediate/advanced)?

15. What is your current housing situation?

o Social housing (council house, housing association)

o Renting - Private accommodation, sharing with others (e.g. friends)

o Renting - Private accommodation, not sharing (e.g. live alone, with family)

o Mortgaged/ home owner

o Other (e.g. homeless)

16. Please specify your current work status in the United Kingdom:

o Employed, working full-t ime (over 35 hours a week)

o Employed, working part-time (over 35 hours a week)

o Retired

o Not employed, looking for work

o Not employed, NOT looking for work

o Disabled, not able to work


17. If you are employed, which of the following best describes your job?

o Semi-skilled and unskilled (labourer, cleaner/basic childcare, coffee shop/retail assistant)

o Skilled (lorry driver, t radesperson, nurse, teaching assistant)

o Highly-skilled (doctor, teacher, IT worker, researcher, pharmacist, engineer)


18. Have you had any problems or difficulties finding jobs in the United Kingdom? Please choose all that apply.

o Employers often do not accept my qualifications and experience.

o I have difficu lties with the language

o Personal constraints (time, costs, family, other responsibilities)

o Discrimination

o Other

19. Which of these descriptions best describe your current marital status?

o Single, never married

o Living with partner (cohabiting) /common law

o Married/ civil union/ civil partnership

o Legally separated / divorced / civil union dissolved

o Other (e.g. widowed)

20. Do you have any children or dependants under 18? If yes, how many?

21. Is it valuable to develop/maintain new relationships in the United Kingdom?

22. Is it valuable to maintain one's Romanian identity and culture?



3283 words, 15/05/2015. 23 | P a g e

Appendix V: Questionnaire pt.2, measurement of perceived capital scale

1. I am happy living here in Britain

Strongly Agree Agree Indifferent Disagree Strongly Disagree

2. I am confident speaking English


3. I enjoy socialising with British people


4. I am well-connected in getting what I need


5. I know what I can do to improve my life here in Britain


6. I often read/watch British news/film


7. I feel welcome here in Britain




3283 words, 15/05/2015. 24 | P a g e

8. My knowledge and experience are valued here in Britain


9. I am content with the skills I am developing here in Britain


10. I like to look well-presented when going out/to work


11. Communicating with people is straightforward in Britain


12. I have been made to feel an equal citizen to others in Britain


13. I feel able to achieve what I want to living here in Britain


14. I feel valued and we lcome in my local neighbourhood




3283 words, 15/05/2015. 25 | P a g e

15. I enjoy visiting different cities/landmarks here in Britain


16. I feel confident in being able to access local services (e.g. hospital, council, library)


17. I often find myself saying/thinking in the same way as my parents


18. I like to own expensive/valuable items


19. I can rely on people around me to help me when needed


20. I can benefit from help/advice from people around me




3283 words, 15/05/2015. 26 | P a g e

Appendix VI: Questionnaire pt.3, measurement of Romanian identification

1) I feel I am part of a Romanian community here in Britain


2) I often read Romanian news


3) I am comfortable speaking Romanian in Britain


4) I often cook Romanian food in Britain


5) Romanians have been made to feel welcome in Britain


6) I have continued many aspects of my lifestyle from living in Romania


7) I am proud to say I am Romanian




3283 words, 15/05/2015. 27 | P a g e

8) I often attend events organised by Romanian friends/family


9) Being Romanian is an important part of my identity


10) I often watch Romanian TV/film


21. Please use this space to write anything you wish to about your movement to Britain and your experiences living here.

22. Finally, if you have any feedback about the questionnaire, please write it here.



3283 words, 15/05/2015. 28 | P a g e

Appendix VII: Breakdown of ‘measurement of perceived capital’ scale

Total = 10 cultural capital

= 10 social capital

Statement Capital Type

I am happy living here in Britain social

I am confident speaking English cultural

I enjoy socialising with British people social

I am content with the skills I am developing here in Britain cultural

I am well-connected in getting what I need social

I like to look well-presented when going out/to work cultural

I know what I can do to improve my life here in Britain social

I often read/watch British news/film cultural

I feel welcome here in Britain social

My knowledge and experience are valued here in Britain cultural

I feel able to achieve what I want to living here in Britain social

Communicating with people is straightforward in Britain cultural

I have been made to feel an equal citizen to others in Britain social

I feel confident in being able to access local services

(e.g. hospital, council, library)

cultural

I feel valued and welcome in my local neighbourhood social

I enjoy visiting different cities/landmarks here in Britain cultural

I can benefit from help/advice from people around me social

I often find myself saying/thinking in the same way as my parents cultural

I can rely on people around me to help me when needed social

I like to own expensive/valuable items cultural



3283 words, 15/05/2015. 29 | P a g e

Appendix VIII: Breakdown of ‘measurement of perceived Romanian capital’ scale

Total = 10 symbolic capital

Statement Capital Type

I feel I am part of a Romanian community here in Britain symbolic

I often read Romanian news symbolic

I am comfortable speaking Romanian in Britain symbolic

I often cook Romanian food in Britain symbolic

Romanians have been made to feel welcome in Britain symbolic

I have continued many aspects of my lifestyle from living in Romania symbolic

I am proud to say I am Romanian symbolic

I often attend events organised by Romanian friends/family symbolic

Being Romanian is an important part of my identity symbolic

I often watch Romanian TV/film symbolic

romanian identity, acculturation, and belonging in britain: a ......research in this area (e.g....

Documents